Tag Archives: politics

Government Shutdown : Who’s Actually Taking Poor Hostages?

1 Reply

Another government shutdown is looming for Friday March 14th. Coincidentally, also the 5 year anniversary of the Covid shutdowns (if you count from Saturday, which I do). One about too much government and the other about “too little” (theoretically). Not sure if Congress will reconcile it by the time I publish this, but it got me thinking. What happened the last few times the government shut down? I talked to Chat GPT to make sure my memory was correct about the dynamics that were happening. Chat GPT indeed confirmed the main issue I had with the debate.

Legacy Media Narrative

The general narrative is that the Republican party is holding America hostage by not fully funding the government. I remember Anderson Cooper lamenting about the FDA postponing drug approval without the slightest notion that if they didn’t prohibit drugs in the first place, the shutdown wouldn’t affect people getting there medicine. I believe he interviewed a young boy’s mother stating he might not live if the government remained closed. All the people with the same illness, but months ahead of this particular individual, had already felt the impact.

However, if Republicans are willing to fund a portion of the government, why are they accused of holding anyone hostage? The Democrats say they want to fund the same portion. Isn’t it the Democrats, who won’t fund anything, really the ones holding the country hostage. They just want to fund more. The Republicans disagree with that funding.

The Real Hostage Taker

Logic dictates that Congress should first fund everything agreed upon. Not giant bills (there used to be 12, now usually just one continuing resolution). First get all the “basics”. I’m sure I disagree with the mainstream political consensus, but let political will take us where it will. Then make compromises for getting things that don’t have a consensus. Trade votes and choose the least of bad options.

When this occurs, Republicans feel political pressure to cave. They really need to get out in front of the argument. Those not voting for any funding if all the funding they want isn’t included are really the ones “holding America hostage”.

The Morality of Social Security

Leave a reply

In the debate on social security, I often hear this refrain: I paid into it, so it’s my money.  Ignore that SCOTUS has consistently stated there is no legal right to the money paid in. It’s still a fact that the money paid in by past generations was immediately spent.  Where was this money spent? It was spent on subsidizing government services for those very same people.  You know, the people that voted for the representatives that decided to collect less tax revenue from income taxes. Instead they “borrowed” those funds from the payroll tax.

It bears repeating that the people whose payroll tax contributions were used to fund borrowing for government services were the same people that voted for the representatives that decided this was a good policy.  They were also the same people that benefited from less income tax and, more accurately, goods and services that had less income tax cost embedded in them.

Of course, I’m not a collectivist and understand that many individuals saw this occurring. Furthermore, many voted against this sort of thing (or at least for representatives that didn’t support it). However, the notion that people that had paid into social security had their money taken by an external force, just isn’t accurate.  Does that mean I think social security should immediately end? That those that were forced to pay in should be left high and dry? Absolutely not. But does that mean that I would like to start modifying the program immediately? Absolutely. I’d start with wealthy retirees being cut off. 

As a start to this process, so the voting public can see more clearly to what these sorts of changes would mean, please read my post on Social Security and Medicare Clarity. Means testing, conversion to owned retirement assets, and/or making Social Security a safetly net only program are all good reforms.

Free Market Immigration

Leave a reply

I recently watched a Reason YouTube video called “What’s the ideal immigration policy?”.  It was basically a debate between libertarians Dave Smith (who I’ve been familiar with for a few years) and Chris Freiman (who I had never heard of) hosted by Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe on their “Just Asking Questions” series.  Mr. Smith’s position was basically that controlling the borders was completely inline with libertarian principles.  Even going as far as saying it was communist not to want to control the borders. (Though this may have either been hyperbole or using communist outside of the definition that includes central planning. I’ve at least argued with socialists that take this position.)  Mr. Freiman’s position was that freedom of movement and association were key libertarian principles that would be violated by government restricting immigration.

The term “open borders” was also thrown around.  I’ve struggled with this term myself, believing I support open borders, but still allow for restrictions WRT safety.  Maybe the best way is defining what I mean by open.  First, and what I believe is the easiest to make a libertarian case for, is labor.  Anyone that wants a job and has someone else willing to give them that job, should be able to enter into that contract.  I also believe a lot of opposition to open borders is opposition to this very thing. That’s what I call “centrally planning” labor.  Politicians, or the “ruling elite” if you will, decide how many of what type of labor should be allowed into the country.  I also believe tourism, visiting relatives, and other forms of voluntary association shouldn’t be restricted.

Before I go too far, however, let me address a concern I think libertarians on both sides of this debate have: Tax-payer charity, i.e. “welfare”.  It has been stated that “You can’t have open borders at the same time that you have a welfare state.”  Even by my favorite libertarian, Milton Friedman.  I have to respectfully disagree.  Those 2 restrictions on freedom are absolutely, 100% mutually exclusive.  Having one doesn’t justify having the other.  If tomorrow, the “open borders” legislation was passed and signed, it could state that no immigrants are eligible. (On a side note, it could and should also state that no one is eligible, but that’s a different subject.)  If it didn’t have that caveat, would I still support it?   I’m not sure, but am leaning towards no.

I also think a lot of the debate hinges on restriction of public property.  “Using heroin in a public school bathroom” was the prime example of libertarians supporting some restrictions.  I too, agree with restrictions, but, to be fair, no one was suggesting we only limit immigrants from doing this, but citizens were free to do what they want, especially as taxpayers.  It was the act that we democratically decided (yes via the “ruling elite”) that was bad.  Not the immigration status of the individual consuming the heroin.  The same is true, of course, of using roads (funded via gas tax) or even being on public property in general.  What if an immigrant wants to just come here and sleep on a park bench?  Again, I’m not sure what the answer to homelessness is, but I don’t think it should be based on immigration status (with maybe public systems being subject to the same caveat I endorsed for welfare).

Culture was also given as an acceptable reason (I believe even a libertarian reason) for restricting immigration.  This I wholeheartedly reject.  People are free to associate, eat, dress, etc. as they wish.  In fact, IMHO, one of the best advantages of a system as free as ours is that various cultures can express themselves as freely as they want (as long as the non-aggression principle is respected, of course).

Voting, on the other hand, or the right to vote, is completely up to democratic decision making.  I think a lot of the desire to restrict immigration has to do with the party that’ll be perceived to gain the most politically.  Which is of course, the democrats.  Republicans believe it and don’t want them voting.  Democrats believe and absolutely want them to vote.  In fact, Democrats keep immigrants in the shadows by rejecting compromises that’ll limit the path to citizenship.  I feel this is probably the topic of another post, but let me just say, I’m 100% with letting immigrants in, especially to work, without any path to citizenship, or even if we say limit the number of naturalized citizens on an annual basis.  To me, that’s much more in line with liberty than limiting who can and can’t work.

Probably, the last major category of determining the free flow of immigration is asylum.  Our current system is government based, but, as always, I’d prefer a private solution.  Reason has another great article on the future (and past) of this phenomena in the United States.  I’d say this is a subcategory of general social services.

I’m just going to wrap up by saying the Reason discussion is a great watch.  They did a great job of pointing out where different flavors of libertarianism may have differing opinions on the subject.  Though I personally lean “open borders”, I can see reasoning behind certain restrictions.

Why do states fund political party primaries?

Leave a reply

On this Super Tuesday, as I’m watching election returns, I’m reminded of the question I often ask during primary season: Why do states use taxpayer dollars to help political parties choose their candidates?  I think I started asking this question when California was going through their open primary battle with political parties.  Californians decided we should have “open” primaries, i.e. primaries where voters could choose any candidate regardless of their own party affiliation, and the Democrat and Republican parties decided that wasn’t fair and sued.  I believe the final determination was that voters could vote for any candidate they wanted to, but political parties were free to ignore that vote.

               As a liberation, I supported the latter part of that decision.  After all, political parties are private organizations.  But that got me thinking, if they’re private, why is the government even funding a mechanism for them to choose a candidate?  My only conclusion was that they shouldn’t be.  I’m sure given that the vast majority of those elected are from political parties that getting any elected official to call for a stop would be impossible. Maybe, at least in states that allow for public referendum, voters/citizens/taxpayers (at least those that aren’t officially part of a political party), would be willing to stand up and put a stop to this waste of taxpayer dollars.

               Prior to writing this post, I decided to ask ChatGPT the question “Why do states pay for primaries?”  The following is the response.  “Reaching” would be an understatement:

States in the United States typically bear the cost of conducting primary elections for political parties as part of the democratic process. Primary elections are a crucial step in the electoral system, serving as a means for political parties to select their candidates for various offices, such as presidential, gubernatorial, or congressional positions. Here are some reasons why states cover the expenses of primaries:

  1. Facilitating the Democratic Process: States aim to ensure a fair and accessible democratic process by organizing primary elections. By covering the costs, they contribute to creating an environment where citizens can actively participate in selecting their preferred candidates.
  2. Party Autonomy: Political parties in the United States have a considerable degree of autonomy in determining their nomination processes. States conduct primaries as a way to allow parties to select their candidates, and by covering the costs, states support the parties in carrying out this fundamental function.
  3. Inclusivity: States want to encourage broad participation in the electoral process. By organizing and funding primaries, they make it easier for voters to engage in the candidate selection process, promoting inclusivity and representation.
  4. Ensuring Fairness: The government’s involvement in primaries helps ensure that the election process is conducted fairly and transparently. States set rules and regulations to maintain the integrity of the primary elections, which may include guidelines on candidate eligibility, voting procedures, and the counting of ballots.
  5. Legal Requirements: In some states, the law mandates the government to organize and finance primary elections. This legal framework is designed to provide consistency and a standardized approach to the primary election process.
  6. Party Access to Ballot: Political parties often need to fulfill certain requirements, such as obtaining a certain percentage of votes in a primary, to gain access to the general election ballot. States may facilitate this process by organizing and covering the costs of primaries.

While states generally cover the expenses associated with primaries, political parties may also contribute funds for their internal operations during the primary season. The specific arrangements can vary from state to state, reflecting the diversity in election laws and regulations across the country.

Top of Form